Questions: Interview Form: Dialogue as Literary Document

Question 1

What is the primary material in interview-based nonfiction?

• A. The interviewer's commentary and interpretation.
• B. Conversations between interviewer and subject presented as primary source.
• C. Information researched elsewhere.
• D. Fictional dialogue.

Answer: (B)

Interview-based nonfiction uses the actual conversation as its material. The interview is not supplementary research; it's the core of the work. The reader experiences the interview directly, not filtered through the interviewer's summary.

Question 2

What does it mean that 'the interviewer's role' matters in interview-based nonfiction?

• A. The interviewer is irrelevant to the interview.
• B. The interviewer's questions, presence, and editing choices shape what the interview reveals and how readers experience it.
• C. Interviews happen without interviewer involvement.
• D. The interviewer should be completely hidden.

Answer: (B)

The interviewer is never neutral. The questions asked shape what's revealed. The interviewer's presence and personality affect how the subject responds. How the interview is edited affects how readers experience it. Good interview-based nonfiction is often transparent about the interviewer's role.

Question 3

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

These are different forms with different effects. A documentary interview lets readers encounter the subject's voice directly. A narrative interview uses the material of conversation but frames, edits, and arranges it. Both are valid; they accomplish different things.

Question 4

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

Interview transcripts are often messy—full of false starts, repetition, filler words like 'um' and 'like.' Most interview-based nonfiction does some editing for clarity while maintaining the sense of the subject's voice. The question is how much editing and whether that editing is transparent.

Question 5

How might interview-based nonfiction work differently as a documentary form (raw transcript) versus as a crafted narrative? What does each accomplish?

Model answer:

A documentary interview might preserve the actual transcript, messy as it is, letting readers encounter the subject's authentic voice with all its rhythms and hesitations. This creates a particular kind of authenticity and trust. A narrative interview might edit for clarity, add framing questions and context, arrange material thematically rather than chronologically. This crafts a more literary experience. Documentary form emphasizes the subject's voice; narrative form emphasizes interpretation and significance. Both can be powerful. Documentary interviews work well when the subject's voice and perspective are compelling in themselves. Narrative interviews work well when the interviewer's contribution—the questions asked, the connection made—is valuable, or when the material needs arrangement to reveal significance.